Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by John7878781 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

John7878781

I am vegan except for fish, and find it works really well. Sardines are awesome!

View on HN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pescetarianism

A good term for that is pescatarian - as eating fish is neither vegan nor veg!

I'm also vegan except for fish. And meat.

And occasional steak? I love steak.

I am a pesca-pescaterian, btw.

So not vegan at all.

I'd say their description is fair. We don't have a word for vegan+fish. Pescetarianism includes eggs, milk, etc.

So they're precisely vegan, with fish.

Except veganism is not a diet, but an ethical framework. The diet is a consequence, not the definition.

What is the term for the vegan diet sans the ethical framework? If there isn't one, that kinda sucks.

It does indeed exist, it's called the Plant Based Diet.

That makes sense, thank you!

That is absolutely wrong.

There is no gray area when it comes to veganism. Just because there is no word for that diet, does not mean you can just twist the definition of vegan for your convenience.

You could easily just say your a pescatarian who doesn’t eat dairy or eggs, and that would be more correct.

Sorry for not being perfect like you. For ethical reasons, I do not consume dairy or meat (except for fish). The vegan community should be more open to other perspectives, especially when someone is actively making an effort towards reducing harm.

Vegan Puritanism is totally antithetical to our collective goal of reducing animal suffering. Rather than being motivated by the prospect of claiming moral superiority, our goal should be to help the animals.

Killing and eating animals is not a perspective vegans will be open to.

You can reduce harm, but you cannot call yourself vegan until you actually eliminate the possibility of eating animals or their products from your life. There is no reason you HAVE to eat fish.

It's not really a moral issue, it's simply the definition of the word. Using an incorrect term to describe yourself knowing it is incorrect can be perceived as virtue-signaling or claiming your own moral superiority. For example, one could ask "why call yourself a vegan if you eat fish?".

There's no policing body here, but people are rightfully calling the double-standard out here.

Edit: Would also love to hear the ethics of why fish can be eaten when cows/chicken/pigs cannot. Doesn't sound ethically consistent to me at all.

I actually prefer not to call myself a vegan IRL both because of the issue you’re describing and because veganism is (rightfully) associated with having a toxic and intolerant culture. The only reason I said “vegan except fish” in my comment is because the title of the study used the word “vegan” and because the study was talking about veganism in a purely dietary/scientific lens, not an ethical one. I think this was a pretty reasonable thing to do.

If it doesn’t make sense for people to say “vegan except for chicken”, “vegan except for beef”, then why on earth would it make sense to say “vegan except fish”?

Fish aren’t lesser beings, they are living creatures like anything else.

Just stop saying “vegan except fish”. Say you eat plants and fish. That’s all you have to do.

> If it doesn’t make sense for people to say “vegan except for chicken”, “vegan except for beef”, then why on earth would it make sense to say “vegan except fish”?

I don't know why you take offense to someone saying "vegan except for beef" or "vegan except for fish." There is nothing inherently wrong with these statements. It just depends on whether you view veganism as a lifestyle or as a diet, which can vary depending on the context. In the context of a nutrition study, we are obviously talking about the diet, not the lifestyle.

It's not puritanism. You haven't grasped the ethical system if you don't understand that vegans view this as murder. Why should veganism have exceptions when we don't have exceptions for murder, rape, beating children? Most of us view animal exploitation at the same level.

If someone adopts a vegan diet purely for health reasons, are they not a true vegan? They haven’t accepted the moral framework that killing animals is wrong.

Should the study filter out people who eat entirely plant-based for reasons other than ethics. because according to you, that’s not a true vegan diet.

I think you are largely correct that veganism is a lifestyle, not a diet. But in the context in which my comment was made, it was perfectly reasonable for me to say “vegan except for fish,” because the study was analyzing veganism as a diet, not as an ethical lifestyle.

No, veganism is by definition an ethical framework, a term and movement created in the UK in the early 20th century, by the Vegan Society, which still exists, and has a very specific exact definition on their webpage that hasn't changed.

What you are talking about is the Plant Based Diet, which minimizes but doesn't fully exclude animal products, and is not an ethical framework.

You might as well say "I eat Kosher except for pork". It's nonsense.

I assume you mean that the study should not have said “vegan diet” and instead should have said “plant-based diet.” In that case, I agree with you. But don’t direct your anger towards me; direct it towards the authors of the study!

I'm not really angry at you, maybe slightly frustrated at the confusion everyone has about veganism. Appreciate your candor in any case. I'm definitely angry at some other people in this thread through.

Then you would be twisting the meaning of pescatarian. There is no gray area when it comes to pescatarianism.

Pescatarianism isn't an ethical framework like veganism is though.

People would provide significantly more global benefit for their cause, compared to their individual contribution, by not putting people off their cause wholesale.

Just an observation I have found recently.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com